this is "piers morgan live." welcome to our viewers in the united states and around the world. it's midnight on the east coast. tonight, breaking news. the obama administration in turmoil. the scandal claims its first victim. >> today, secretary lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting commissioner of the irs. >> this on the same day the white house released nearly 100 pages of benghazi e-mails. donald rumsfeld says they're still trying to pass the buck. he's on the grill with me tonight live. plus, horrifying revelations of abuse and terror. amanda berry, gina dejesus, michelle knight hidden in the van in the garage when he had visitors. beaten with hand weights. ariel castro's common law wife abused the same way. gina and michelle have spoken by phone. and after all these years in

captivity, one of the girls has discovered what an iphone is. also tonight, law and disorder. on the docket, jodi arias fighting for her life. >> the last thing that mr. alexander felt was this knife, this woman, and this blade coming towards him. >> the jury finds she was extremely cruel. that means she is eligible for the death penalty. the question is, will she get it? and super sized o.j. simpson never testified during his murder trial. now he has finally taken the stand. >> do you think that you were acting legally? >> yes, i did. >> in what you were doing? >> yes, i did. >> and why is that? >> well, it was my stuff. i followed what i thought the law -- >> biggest legal issues of the day. i want to begin with cleveland. ariel castro's daughter, emily, is talking about what she saw inside her father's house. she was interviewed by an investigator in her prison cell where she is serving 25 years

for the attempted murder of her own 11-month-old daughter. >> the upstairs was blocked off with a big bass speaker. so i figured that since he lived there alone so long, that he didn't have any need for those -- what, there's four bedrooms upstairs. he didn't have any need for them. so, you know, he just kind of like -- i was like, can i, you know, sleep upstairs in my old bedroom. and he said no, it's cold up there, blocked off, it's dusty. so i just was like, okay. >> straight to cleveland where ed gallic of woio is live. every day there are new developments and new shocks. today is no exception. let's start with ariel castro's daughter there, who herself is serving a very lengthy prison sentence for trying to kill her baby. tell me about this. >> reporter: well, what stands

out is her description of inside that house. again, talking about a bass speaker blocking off some of the doors and in effect saying, dad, let me sleep in my old room and him saying that room, the heat is not good in there, dusty in there. you don't want to go in there. and that gets back to another point we have heard about how he was so secretive and able to conceal this. one story i've heard about the women, they were put into a van, locked in the van, locked in the garage, to keep them out of sight when this guy knew he was going to have visitors come over. >> and in terms of the daughter herself, many viewers probably don't know much about her case. tell me what she did. because she seemed to have some complete mental breakdown and tried to kill her baby. >> reporter: yeah, she's doing up to 25 years for trying to kill her own baby, less than a year old. cut about four times. and this apparently, according to her, stems from some kind of domestic problem she was having with the father of the child.

but yet you wonder. some of the parallels are just chilling. >> right. absolutely. let's turn to -- talking of chilling, the statements made by ariel castro's legal team. i want to play a little clip from this. because it really was quite shocking, i thought. let's listen to this. >> so when the judge at the arraignment says how do you plead to kidnapping, how do you plead to rape and whatever else, what are you going to say? >> it definitely is going to be two words "not guilty." i can tell you that mr. castro is extremely committed to the well-being and positive future for his daughter, who he loves dearly. >> i don't know about you, ed, but i found that pretty bizarre, to be so categoric. this guy is no monster, he's a

loving father, et cetera, et cetera. when the sheer evidence against him to the contrary is right there in front of us. >> yeah, a couple of things stand out there. our newsroom talked to those attorneys just hours ago, and they admit, they are getting some backlash. people saying, how can you represent an accused monster? you're not representing that guy. and their answer, of course, as attorneys, it's the american way, everybody gets a fair trial, that kind of thing. okay. but then again, consider this. again, this guy is talking about how much he loves his daughter. the daughter born in captivity, born to amanda berry. however, that child, it should be pointed out, never went to a doctor. that child hadn't been going to school. that child was born in the house in an inflatable pool, delivered by one of the other hostages. so, again, consider, i love my daughter, but all of that? how can that be? the response we got to that today was we'll have to wait and see what all of the circumstances are. and, again, that begs the question, well, what kind of circumstances could possibly justify all that, showing that

you love your daughter? >> right. ed gallic, thank you very much indeed, as always. now i want to turn to one of today's other big stories. o.j. simpson doing something he never did during his 1995 murder trial, taking the witness stand. simpson is serving 33 years for robbie, kidnapping and assault, stemming from an incident in 2007. now he wants a new trial. cnn's george howell is in las vegas where the case is heard. george, we finally get to hear from o.j. simpson. >> piers, you know, we saw an alert, o.j. simpson, very comfortable, back in the spotlight, and for the first time telling his version of events leading up to and then during that confrontation with these two sports memorabilia dealers. but again, what did we see? we saw a 65-year-old who is heavier, visibly grayer. and instead of wearing those suit and ties that we're used to seeing, this time o.j. simpson sporting a blue prison jumpsuit, piers.

>> and in terms of where this is going to go, it's going to come down, presumably, to his word against his former attorney's word, right? >> right. you know, and there's a lot of groundwork. there's a lot of foundation that he and his new attorney are laying down. but really, it goes to the heart of this matter. o.j. simpson says that he got bad legal advice, but get this. before the confrontation even happened, he says that he had a conversation with his attorney, and the attorney told him he could go back, piers, and take back his belongings, legally. listen to what he had to say. >> what was his advice to you regarding the entire plan? >> that if they didn't give me the stuff, you have to call the police. >> okay. >> and that's what i told everybody involved. that if they don't give it to me, i'm going to get the police in here. >> okay. did you have any understanding whether you could detain people or not? >> not until the police came. >> okay. so at this point your advice is

no trespass on other people's property. >> yes. >> you can use some force. >> yes. >> you can demand your property? >> yes. >> okay. and if they refuse to give it to you, you can detain them. >> yes. but i had no doubt they would give it to me. >> okay. >> reporter: piers, there were also a couple other big items that were mentioned. first of all, o.j. says his attorney did not tell him about a plea deal that he could have taken to take two years in prison instead of a long prison sentence that he currently has. and he also says his attorney told him, advised him, not to testify in court. the attorney basically saying he would not be convicted. so he did not testify in court. and simpson's new attorney is basically making the case that o.j. simpson did not get that opportunity to speak up for himself against the evidence that prosecutors had against his character. and events of those several days. >> george, there was also fascinating insight to his relationship with alcohol.

tell me about that. >> reporter: right. and we learned about this. the day before the confrontation, even the day of the confrontation, o.j. simpson said, look, he was in vegas for a wedding. there was a lot of drinking before the confrontation, during the confrontation. he even said, look, i wouldn't drive a car in my condition. listen to how he explained it in court. >> well, are you having any alcohol? >> oh, yes. >> and how much were you drinking, if you can remember? >> well, you know, i had a joke that my doctor says i should never have an empty glass is what i would tell the waitress. so we were celebrating. it was, you know -- we were all celebrating. >> reporter: so simpson basically admitting that, you know, alcohol could have been, was a factor. and it's still unclear exactly how that could play out in the judge's mind. >> right. pretty extraordinary to watch him finally giving evidence. george howell, thank you very much indeed. now it's time for tonight's

"law and disorder." cases americans are talking about from o.j. simpson to ariel castro, to jodi arias. gloria allred and alan dershowitz are here. welcome to both of you. let's start with you. come on. what do you make of seeing him finally give evidence? >> he's not a bad witness. i certainly advised and most of the people on the defense team advised him to stay off the witness stand at his murder trial. and that was the right advice at that time. he has no shot at all, i think, at winning on the issue of his lawyer telling him to stay off the witness stand. that's just tactical advice. he has really good shot, if he can prove that he wasn't told about an offer of two years. >> but is that plausible? is that likely? >> yes, yes. and it happens. it happens all of the time. lawyers want their chance to be on television. in this case, he argues the lawyer may have had a conflict of interest. i have seen many cases, and they have been reversed, when the

lawyer fails to communicate an offer. the third issue is, if the lawyer, in fact, gave him advice prior to his going into this room, saying this is what you can can do, this is what you can't do, he clearly had a conflict of interest. he was then a witness, not a lawyer. so on two of the three issues, he has some chance of prevailing. now, i think everybody out there ought to face one reality. if this were not o.j. simpson, and if all americans didn't believe he had killed his wife and gotten away with it, no way is he going to get this kind of sentence for doing what he did. he is being punished for what many perceive as having gotten away with murder. >> would you agree? >> first of all, i think that's insulting to the judge who is the one who sentenced him. having said that, i would respectfully disagree with mr. dershowitz in reference to his statement, oh, o.j. is not a bad witness. o.j. did testify in the civil case. where the goldman family and the estate of nicole brown simpson

were suing him for the killing of both of those individuals. and he did testify, and the jury did not believe him. and they found that he was libel for the wrongful death of both nicole and of ron. so i actually at the time and said in my book, i said that he should have been investigated for perjury at that time. because of what he testified to that he had never hit, slapped, punched nicole. and that he said that, he testified to that, standing beside or sitting beside large blown-up photos of her with a black eye. and obviously that was not true. so having said that, he actually has 19 grounds that the judge is allowing him to present evidence to, as to why he should be granted a new trial. out of the 22 that he wanted. and we'll see whether he is successful with any of them. >> but you know, the issue of whether he should be punished for what he was previously acquitted of, bears some resemblance to what's going on

with the irs now. if you don't like somebody, you apply a double standard of justice to them. whether it's auditing him or giving him a harsher sentence. and gloria, i would like you to look me in the eye and tell me he would get 33 years for trying to recover his own property if his name weren't o.j. simpson. >> first of all, allen, i will look you in the eye and tell you this, that he was convicted of robbery. and there were guns present. and although he denies knowing or having criminal intent and all of that, the jury didn't buy it, okay. so having been convicted of numerous counts, he was sentenced. i don't have any problem with the sentence. and, you know, now he's tried to reverse it. we'll see whether or not he is successful. >> talking of behavior involving attorneys, i was pretty shocked by the tone that ariel castro's attorneys -- were you shocked? >> i was shocked. look, everybody is entitled to a defense. and if you have the unfortunate bad luck of being called to represent somebody who is genuinely a monster, you may

have an obligation to do it. but you're not obligated to be a character witness. you're not obligated to go on television and tell the world this is a commendable person. you are obligated to present in court legal issues that will help him. so i too was very surprised at slipping over from being a defense lawyer to being a character witness. >> obviously, he's trying to affect the climate of opinion for the potential jury pool, if there is such a trial. i tend to doubt there will ever be a trial. >> i agree. >> he's just trying to position for a deal so his client doesn't get the death penalty. >> a short break. i'm going to talk about jodi arias, one step nearer the death penalty now. and i'm about to interview donald rumsfeld on the grill. i might get you two to pose a question to the great man. looks a bit nervous. hoo-hoo hoo. sir... i'll get it together i promise... heeheehee.

jimmy: ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? ronny: i'd say happier than the pillsbury doughboy on his way to a baking convention. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. and one wedding, 2 kids, 43 bottles of olay total effects and many birthdays later, still looks amazing. thanks to the trusted performance of olay.

state of arizona versus jodi ann arias, verdict, count one, aggravating factor, especially cruel. we the jury duly impanelled and sworn in the above entitled action upon our oath do find that the aggravating factor, especially cruel, has been proven. signed foreperson. >> jodi arias listening as a jury says cruelty was an aggravating factor in her killing of ex-boyfriend travis

alexander. that means she will face a possible death sentence when the jury reconvenes tomorrow. should she be executed for the murder? back with me now for more law and disorder, attorneys gloria allred and allan dershowitz. gloria, yes or no. they have to face three now. they think she was guilty of cruelty. that means she can be executed. should she should be? >> exceptional cruelty is what they found. it's hard to say, because now we're going to hear the leniency factors presented by her defense. it's hard to imagine what they are. except for her family saying she has been a good daughter and friend and so forth, which i think is going to be hard to outweigh the aggravating factor with that. but it is not mandatory that the jury find the death penalty. it's going to have to be unanimous. and that may be more difficult, probably will be a lot more difficult than finding that what she did was exceptionally cruel. >> it's looking -- if the jury goes this stage of saying, yes, we do think she is eligible for it, aren't they more likely to say we think she should have it?

>> oh, yeah, if you're predicting the outcome, most likely she will get the death penalty. but she shouldn't. if she did, she wouldn't be getting the death penalty for what she did. of course it was especially cruel. what kind of murder is not especially cruel? but in general women don't get the death penalty for domestic murders. o.j. simpson, the state didn't even seek the death penalty, although it was a double murder, and obviously whoever did it did it with extraordinary cruelty. whether you get the death penalty in arizona or anywhere else is extremely random. and we should not be imposing the death penalty. >> the political factors in that decision, not the same -- >> quickly, donald rumsfeld is sweating out there, worried. if you had the chance, what would you ask him? >> well, if you think that the irs commissioner should be fired, do you think that the president of the united states, george w. bush, should have been fired for acting on faulty intelligence and sending troops to -- the iraq war. >> i like that. you should be one of my researchers. and allan?

>> similar question. were you just as angry when nixon had an enemies list and audited me several times during his administration, and other liberals who he perceived as enemy. how do we make this not a political issue. how do we make sure the irs is taken out of politics. >> these are great questions. he's not going to like either of those. thank you very much. the resignation of the acting director of the irs. but that's certainly not the end of the scandal. one of three that the white house is grappling with right now. jessica yellin and dana bash join us now. jessica, off the top, can you ever remember a time when a white house has been battling three big scandals at the same time like this? >> reporter: oh, i'm sure it happened during the clinton administration at some point, don't you think? but i can't name exactly the day. but this is unusual for the obama administration. one of the things this president has a problem with is quick response. they're really slow off the dime. but once they get into action, they're better at reeling it in. it looks like the obama administration is finally in

response mode, and you'll see if he's getting his footing. he's started today, piers. >> and in terms of the irs, which many perceive to be arguably the biggest of the three scandals. tell me this, why was steven miller -- and by the way, why wasn't there a real one? why has he had had to go, when from what i hear he wasn't actually running the irs? >> you ask the money question. that's what everyone is e-mailing me to ask. no, he wasn't in charge when this happened. but, you know, the man on top is the guy who always takes the fall when something gets screwed up, bottom line, right? so he was -- this is -- he was not in charge when all this went down. but he is in charge now, and was in charge when there was misrepresentation of this problem to congress. so he has to take some responsibility for that. and this auditor's report also found there was shoddy

management when he was on top. and so he has to take responsibility for that, as well. and in a letter to his staff, he said, look, we need to sort of resteady the boat and this will help reset the team. i don't think it will end here, but it's a start, piers. >> okay, dana, we've also got the fallout from the a.p. scandal. this morning the obama administration asked senator chuck schumer to reintroduce legislation that would help reporters protect the identity of their sources from federal officials. where is that going? >> well, it's going further than it would have a couple of days ago. this is really interesting, piers. because this is an issue that has historically had bipartisan support. just a few years ago, back in 2009, senator chuck schumer, a democrat, an ally of the president, was trying to get this through. and suddenly it got stopped in its tracks. according to schumer back then, it's because the obama administration tried to water it town too much. they effectively didn't want it. guess what, they picked up the

phone this morning, they called chuck schumer and said maybe it's time for you to reintroduce that reporter shield law bill. so that's exactly what he did. it's another example of -- on all of these fronts the obama administration trying to do damage control. and this time legislatively. >> and jessica, the third scandal. hard to keep up with all of this. but benghazi. a massive e-mail dump. in our first look, it seemed like the white house was being vindicated. many of the stuff that came out of the talking points seems to be backed up in the e-mails as being at the cia's request. but the "new york times" sent a piece suggesting it wasn't entirely true and the state department also putting lots of pressure to remove stuff as well. where are we with this? the republicans are saying, well, there's many more e-mails. we haven't seen them all. >> no. well, it depend -- well, look, administration officials say this is everything. they say we have seen all the e-mails now. so if they want more, if would only be notes about the e-mails. though they say this is the

complete set. okay, that's that question. is this -- does this vindicate the white house? you will find whatever you're looking for in this. it does vindicate the argument that the intelligence community kept -- made the changes that seemed to be most controversial. it was the cia that seemed to take out the word "al qaeda." it was the cia that changed the word "attack" to "demonstration". if you're looking for state department changes, as well, there is evidence of that. for example, the state department pressed to take out ansar al sharia, an the al-qaeda affiliate, was behind the attacks. there is evidence that the state department did press for that change. so there is enough for both sides to grab at in these e-mails to keep this alive as an issue for some time to come, piers. >> okay. very quickly. the pair of you, just tell me which one of the three you think is actually the most damaging. i'll start with you, jessica. >> i think the irs. because it hits americans where they understand it. >> okay. dana? >> absolutely agree.

look, we all are -- it sends a chill up our spine. the concept of the federal government taking all of our -- or the press corps' e-mail records or phone records, i should say. but i don't think the american people care as much as we do. the irs is something everybody gets, everybody has to pay their taxes. they completely understand that things they have to go through with regard to that. so that is absolutely the worst. but i think if you take all of these together, big picture, the reason why they all kind of have a thread, a common thread, is because it is from the perspective of many people, big government run amuck. and that is exactly where from the republican point of view they have been warning about for lots of years for the obama administration. i think this is going to help them politically, big-time, going into the midterm election. >> dana bash, thank you very much indeed. we'll ask donald rumsfeld about benghazi, the irs, a.p. in fact, all of it. i'm going to throw every scandal at a man who has known a few in his career.

i've reviewed the treasury department watchdogs' report. and the misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. it's inexcusable and americans have a right to be angry about it and i am angry about it. i will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the irs. >> a heated president obama this evening speaking out about the irs scandal, led to resignation of the acting commissioner, or rather he has been fired. donald rumsfeld has a lot to say about this. and futch more.

the former defense secretary's new book is "rumsfeld rules" and joins me now on the grill. welcome to you, sir. >> thank you very much. >> how are you? >> excellent. >> we'll try and change that. >> come on. come on. >> you've been in this position where you get hit with all sorts of stuff. and it all comes at once. when you look at these three scandals in totality, are they real scandals or run of the mill issues that any white house has to deal with? >> well, one is bad. two is four and three is ten. the pressure is enormous in the white house when this happens. it's the perfect storm. of our history to know that beg and bad things can start from very small things. and the old rule is that -- there are two rules in

washington. the first rule is, the cover-up is worse than the event. and the second rule is no one remembers the first rule. >> let's start with cover-up. because i'm going to come to the irs, which i think is arguably as my two fellow correspondents said earlier, the most important to americans. but benghazi, the republicans continue to say was about a cover-up. it was about a deliberate attempt by the administration to avoid the american public hearing the truth. do you believe that, given all of the e-mails that have come out today? >> i think the way to think of it is that as i think mark twain said, trust leaves on horseback and returns on foot. the united states, the president leads through persuasion, not command. he has to be trusted to be persuasive. and the incremental loss of trust. i was -- came into the whitehouse after the nixon resignation as chief of staff for president ford. and it was -- the reservoir of trust had been drained. and that's your leverage. that's how you lead.

and what's happening here is, incrementally, little by little, the press spokesman, the president, other people in the administration, saying things, are contradictory. and they're confusing people. and then there's the second problem, and then there's the third problem. and i quite agree with you. i think the irs thing is something the american people worry about deeply. the idea that government with all its money and all their tax dollars and all those people turning against the american people is really something that's so fundamentally against what we believe in. that that is at the moment the one that will have the greatest impact. >> we'll come to that in a moment. on benghazi, when i said i was interviewing you on twitter, i know you have an active twitter account, a lot of people said, well put him on the rack. who is he? along with the senior republicans who took us into war in iraq on what turned out to be a pack of lies, based on faulty intelligence about wmd. who is donald rumsfeld to be

lecturing barack obama on faulty intelligence, if that's what it was in benghazi. what do you say to that? >> well, i would count them as kind of as undecided. what you would say is, anyone who suggests that the president lied or that co colin powell's presentation to the united states is a lie is wrong. these are honorable people. they made their best decisions. the u.k. government agreed with it. the french government agreed with it. >> what is the difference -- >> just a minute. >> are you saying -- >> just a minute. >> okay. >> the congress agreed with it. hillary clinton and jay rockefeller and john kerry all agreed. there was a resolution passed by the congress, passed by the u.n. and it's easy for someone to throw out that allegation, bush lied, people died. but it's not fair. it's wrong. and it's inaccurate. >> but what is -- >> that's what i would say about it. >> so what is the difference then, between that and benghazi? are you suggesting that people, either hillary clinton or president obama, have lied about this?

>> no, i'm saying that what's happened is, there have been different stories coming out. i mean, think of this. these people were well-armed. the british were so concerned, they took their people out of benghazi. the people, the americans, asked for security, and didn't get it. and four people were killed. and how was it explained? it was explained by the president that it was a spontaneous demonstration that related to some sort of a youtube video. >> right. but we now know -- >> just a minute. >> we now know the cia from the e-mails released today, it was the cia who removed references to al qaeda, specific al qaeda terrorists, removed those from their original talking points. it came from them. >> i don't know that. >> i think what we'll find is, there will be hearings in the congress, and you'll find you're not quite right, probably. that there will be additional information. >> we can only go once out there. >> no, we can't. we don't have to go on what's out there.

>> orr -- otherwise it's supposition, isn't it? >> no, what we can say is we don't know enough yet. take the a.p. story. on that issue. i know i don't know enough about that to know why they did it, or what they did or whether they did something that mitigated that. >> but is it ever justified, the a.p. thing, is it ever justified for any administration to basically order a hit on a representable news organization, which may have targeted up to 100 journalists, getting records of all of their phone calls, possibly exposing a huge number of sources. can that ever be justified under the first amendment, never mind anything else? >> i've been in and out of government since 1962 when i was elected to congress. and i have been in the executive branch when a lot of bad things have happened. and i've never seen that done. >> so it's wrong? >> i said -- one of my rules is, if you don't know, say you don't know. and i don't know. when the attorney general of the united states stands up there and says to the people, this

ranks among the top one or two or three things most serious circumstances for our country, i say, well, gee, i'm not going to say much until i know what he's talking about. what is it? is there something so bad that it might cause government to do something like that? >> or, as i suspect, is the potential person who leaked it so important and so high up the food chain, they've got to find out who it was. >> i have no way to know. i just know i don't know. on that one -- >> you know you don't know. i like that answer. >> i don't. >> has the benefit of being entirely honest. when we come back -- let's take a break. i want to get your thoughts on the war on terror, attacks on american soil. and also, i want to get a rumsfeld rule from lynne cheney. >> my rule, the one that don put in his book, is that dogs don't bark at parked cars. it is a rule that gives you some comfort when you're a public figure. because a lot of barking goes on.

but the point of it is that as long as you're trying to do something, that will happen. there will be critics. there will be people who object to what you're doing. the only way you get peace, the only way you can avoid criticism all together, is if you don't do anything.

on the grill is former defense secretary donald rumsfeld. >> why do you call this "the grill?" >> because i like to grill people. we were going to be nice to you, but i said, stick him on the grill. let me grill him for half an hour. >> that's a little arrogant, isn't it, to suggest you're grilling people, as opposed to having -- >> i don't think i'll take arrogant lectures from you, donald rumsfeld. let's move on to the irs, shall we? two questions to my weighty guests before about irs scandals. are you as angry about nixon having had an enemies list? what did you do to him? >> well,it different to have -- for a politician to say these are the people i like and these are the people i don't like. and they're -- that's the enemies list. and i suppose politicians do that. it's not a very productive thing -- politics is addition. so it's not very smart to do that. >> any administration deliberately targeting people --

>> not the irs, no, indeed. that is a totally different thing. once you -- people get a sense they have turned the government of the united states with all those employees and all those tax dollars against the people or some of the people, nobody likes it. the people that aren't even targeted don't like it. >> i think it's outrageous and i've got no great -- for the tea party. very critical of them. i still think it's outrageous. >> it is. >> that they have done this. >> and it's also illegal. >> yeah. >> and anti democratic, and inexcusable. and it should be dealt with in a very, very firm way. >> was the president right to fire the acting chief of the irs >> probably. >> should there be more heads rolling? >> i think some people may end up going to jail. >> who do you think that will be? do we know enough yet? >> i don't. i know i don't. >> should eric holder -- >> and i know you don't either. >> i don't. that's why i'm with you. should eric holder consider his position, do you think? >> oh, i have no idea about that.

i just -- don't know. i think the need to have hearings, they need -- they may have to appoint a special prosecutor. and it has to play out over time. and the -- you know, when i was a navy pilot, the thing you always remembered is if you're lost, you climb, conserve and confess. you get altitude, take a deep breath and say you're lost. and take your time. and don't put out partial information that turns out to be not quite right. even if it's well-intended. because then trust goes down. and that's the risk -- >> again, falls back to benghazi, as well. president obama, for two weeks, would not say this was an act of terrorism. he said it was a terror act. >> he said that once. >> but not terrorism. >> and then he went around saying at the u.n. that it was a spontaneous demonstration, because of youtube and secretary of state clinton went to the families of the people who were killed and said we're going to

find the man who did that youtube video -- video youtube or whatever you call it. and they promoted that inaccurate narrative for days and days and days. and it was wrong and everyone knew it was wrong and the people on the ground knew it was wrong. and they knew they were well-armed and they knew there was no demonstration. and i think the hearings on that are going to be terribly damaging. >> in terms of that and the irs, and the a.p. situation, the real problem for barack obama seems to me, as the president, is that he promised to be different. he promised to be transparent. none of this looks very transparent, is it? the fact that we're having to pull these e-mails out of benghazi nine months later, kicking and screaming out of the white house, even when they appeared to be quite helpful to them. all of it looks like a lack of transparency. >> it does. and trust gets eroded. the other thing that was wrong -- wrong is not the right word.

that was disturbing. the people in benghazi were under attack, and then they were killed. and the president left town. and went on campaigning in las vegas, as i recall. an executive doesn't do that. he calls the people into the white house, and the secretary of defense, as i recall, leon panetta, said he hadn't talked to him about it. i think that the american people expect more of a president. i think they expect him to care, and to be engaged and to call people in and say what in the world was going on. is there anything we can do. >> if it turns out that the president has lied about benghazi, or about the irs, for example, if it turns out senior white house officials knew more than they're saying about what was going on and the original idea to target the tea party came from then -- these are pure hypotheticals, how serious would

that be? >> i think that the currency a president or leader has is trust. and as it's eroded away, it hurts. i think the president said he learned about this from the press. and i think the press spokesman said the white house had known about it two weeks. >> eric holder didn't know what his department was doing at all, apparently. it's all a bit odd. >> he said he recused himself and i don't know why he did. >> there is no apparent evidence he did do that. they can't find the paperwork. it's all very murky. let's take a short break. let's come back and get deep, down and personal with you, donald rumsfeld. and get into this book "rumsfeld's rules" which is, actually, a damn good book. >> why do you act surprised? ♪ [ male announcer ] tenacity plated in chrome. determination covered in mud.

fight firing on six cylinders. the new ram 1500 with best-in-class fuel economy. guts. glory. ram. motor trend's 2013 truck of the year. well, dad, i spent my childhood living with monks learning the art of dealmaking. you've mastered monkey-style kung fu? no. priceline is different now. you don't even have to bid. master hahn taught you all that? oh, and he says to say (translated from cantonese) "you still owe him five bucks." your accent needs a little work. i was having trouble getting out of bed in the i was having trouble morning because my back hurt so bad. the sleep number bed conforms to you. i wake up in the morning with no back pain. i can adjust it if i need to...if my back's a little

more sore. and by the time i get up in the morning, i feel great! if you have back pain, toss and turn at night or wake up tired with no energy, the sleep number bed could be your solution. the sleep number bed's secret is it's air chambers which provide ideal support and put you in control of the firmness. and the bed is perfect for couples because each side adjusts independently to their unique sleep number. here's what clinical research has found: 93% of participants experienced back-pain relief 90% reported reduced aches and pains 87% fell asleep faster and enjoyed more deep sleep. for study summaries, call this number now. we'll include a free dvd and brochure about the sleep number bed including prices, and models plus a free $50 savings card. and how about this? steel springs can cause uncomfortable pressure points. but the sleep number bed contours to your body. imagine how good you'll feel when your muscles

relax and you fall into a deep sleep! i'm not just a back surgeon, i'm also a back patient. i sleep on the sleep number bed myself and i highly recommend it to all of my patients. need another reason to call? the sleep number bed costs about the same as an innerspring but lasts twice as long. so if you want to sleep better or find relief for your bad back, call now. call the number on your screen for your free information kit with dvd, brochure and price list. call right now and you'll also receive a $50 savings card just for inquiring about the sleep number bed. ask about our risk-free 100-night in-home trial. call now for your free information kit and a free $50 savings card. call now! bob will retire when he's 153, which would be fine if bob were a vampire. but he's not.

♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio. and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. almost have six months of your current salary in the bank. with that, you will have the ability to leave any job at any time and never feel pressure to do something you do not think is appropriate. >> that is what her dad told me. >> donald rumsfeld's wife, they have been married 58 years, quite amazing, what did you make of the rumsfeld rule that joyce gave? >> well, her father told me that, he said he never went to college, came out of high school

and started working in montana. and then they moved to fargo, north dakota, and minneapolis and milwaukee, and he said there may be a time in your life when you're asked to do something you shouldn't do. if you have six month's salary in the bank you can tell anywhere you're working for to go to hell. >> have you ever had that moment? >> that i felt that way? >> yes. >> there are plenty of times i said no. >> like what? can you share one with me? >> well, sure, i have argued with presidents, i argued with people, i never have been asked to do something by a president that i thought was illegal or immoral or wrong. or that affected me that way. >> i saw a piece tonight about iraq. there have been twice as many attacks during the first quarter this year in iraq as there were in the first quarter of 2011. >> snur insurgency type attacks.

>> that qualify as an attack. it clearly has not worked, whatever we try to instill in iraq it has not worked. do you have any regrets about how the way iraq is today? >> of course you do, you would like everything to be better. of course the road you didn't travel it is always smoother. you look at the road you traveled it is always bumpy. that is the nature of things. you think of our country, the united states of america had slaves into the 1800s. had a civil war, 600,000 people dead. women didn't vote until the 1900s. we have had a bumpy road, every country has different circumstances. now, are they better off today with the butcher of baghdad gone? saddam hussein? yes. >> are they? >> he used chemical weapons, the killing fields are filled with bodies. >> but as many people are killed

on a daily basis in places like baghdad as they were when saddam hussein was around. >> have you looked at chicago and washington, d.c., the number of people being killed there? human beings can do some god-awful things to human beings. but the country has been given a chance. will it be perfect? no. will it be bumpy, you bet. same thing in afghanistan, there are many more people being killed there now. americans -- when we were in office, i think there were 23,000 americans there. now president obama took it up to 100,000. six times the number of people have been killed. and is that bad? well, no, i think they have been given a chance. and the people that have served there have done a good job. they have got tough neighbors. the taliban is going to try to come back in. will it be a smooth path for them? no, but they have had elections and picked a president. and the country is vastly better off. the taliban were using the soccer stadiums to cut off people's heads instead of

playing soccer. now, can someone say it is not perfect? sure it is not perfect. nothing is perfect in our world, it is a tough world. >> in rumsfeld's rules, what rule would you have for me? >> well, i thought about that coming over here and i put down that the art of listening is indispensable to the right use of the mind. it is also the most generous, the most open and the most appealing of human habits. and you are in a position where you have to do that. and that was from the dean of st. johns college, a man named bar, a great book school here in the united states. and it struck me that that is a hard thing to do, to learn to listen. >> i have a lot of problem with that. >> do you? >> no, i enjoy listening to interesting people. it's been a fascinating half hour.

rumsfeld's rules, i highly recommend it. this is a fascinating book. good to see you. >> good to see you. >> we'll be right back. u 8

this tweet is from anthony, he says i'm shocked to see you finally placing criticism where it belongs, the obama administration. which my answer is this, i criticize the president when he deserves it. and let's face it. he is having a very bad week.

we came to the city tonight because it's been one month since the bombings that change sod many lives. tonight, new details about the manhunt for the tsarnaev brothers, what happened that night in watertown and the shootout with police. and the latest on the investigation, and i speak with adrienne davis, a dance instructor who lost the leg in the attack. we'll find out how she's doing one month into her recovery. disturbing new information about what allegedly went on inside ariel castro's house in cleveland. new word from a law enforcement source about the horror the three women endured. breaking news on two fronts. the irs scandal and the response to the benghazi attack that left four americans dead. a short time ago, president obama spoke out. the president announced that the

acting commissioner of the irs was forced out and the president promised his administration will work with congress to make sure nothing like this happens again. the reach that it has in all of our lives. and as i said earlier, it should not matter what political stripe you're from.